Registry cleaner ?

[thanatoid]

What you haven't done, for all of your posturing, is tell
why you think registry cleaning is a good idea.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? There are adult
education courses available in your area.

We know
that there's always a chance that a neophyte will "clean"
something that will result in trouble

"We" do? How? OF COURSE, there is a always chance a moron who
just turns ON a computer will blow it up within 3 minutes. So
let's not get silly and stay on a real plane - people with an
IQ of 110 plus who know the difference between "show
hidden/system files" and "hide hidden/system files"

and even if the chance is remote, there must be something
that makes the risk worthwhile.

I explained MY reasons for using them, and if you can't
understand them go back to my first sentence. You are also,
of course, free to disagree with me, but please stop making
idiotic statements you have not a single proof for just
because it is fashionable to crap on reg cleaners. I would
also LOVE to get a specific example of a malware reg cleaner.
And even if you CAN provide one, the type of user I am
talking about - ie a person who should NOT be prohibited by
law from owning a computer due to stupidity (sadly, this
means about 75% if not 90% of users worldwide) would know
better than to blindly click on "install our free supercool
reg cleaner NOW!" when visiting an illegal porn site. Sigh.

If you just want to clean out orphaned
entries because their presence bothers you, that's a
personal neurosis and not evidence of efficacy.

No, it is a personal neurosis which can be helped by reg
cleaners and tweaking in general. If you don't have it, be
glad and let others suffer in peace.

Do you
believe that large numbers of orphaned entries cause a
problem (such as significantly slowing down the system)
other than their mere presence?

No, except reg cleaners do a lot more besides cleaning
orphaned entries. Perhaps you should research a bit more
before further blabbing about what you obviously know nothing
about. I still think you have never used an r.c. yourself,
and are therefore disqualified from making anything but a
totally worthless opinion based on hearsay and FUD.

If so, what objective
evidence do you have? Note that "I know my system's faster
after registry cleaning" isn't objective evidence.

You cretin, I never said it was "faster after". In fact I
said there is 0 (ZERO) performance increase.

I know I said there's no point in asking someone like you for
specific examples, but there is little else left to do except
just ignoring you, and I am too bored to leave a good fight.

So instead of repeating yourself, read my posts again and try
to answer some of the questions I posed to you and others of
your oh-so-educated ilk. Like a specific instance of harm an
r.c. has done to a system you are /personally acquainted
with/ which resulted in a /no-boot situation/.

 

[thanatoid]

You don't see much of anything.

What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of
text I have already read previously just to find out.

<SNIP>

 

[Peter Foldes]

What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of
text I have already read previously just to find out.

And there you go. You said it. One reason to Top post so as others do not have to
re-read all 50 chapters over and over as you said above.
Unfortunately bottom posters and almost all of them do not know what a snipping tool
is and as such everything gets reprinted over and over.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

news:[email protected]...

 

[Peter Foldes]

Unknown

Ignore this Steve. He is an ignoramus.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

news:%23x%[email protected]...

 

[Daave]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman"

So it's OK for the registry to grow and grow, with redundant and
outdated entries?

It depends upon the operating system.

For a system like Windows XP, the answer is yes. Nobody had ever offered
convincing evidence that these outdated entries slow down performance.

 

[thanatoid]

And there you go. You said it. One reason to Top post so as
others do not have to re-read all 50 chapters over and over
as you said above.

And have NO clue whWTF the topfeeder is mumbling about.

Unfortunately bottom posters and almost
all of them do not know what a snipping tool is and as such
everything gets reprinted over and over.

I /strongly/ suggest you look in your yellow pages for the
nearest Mental Health Clinic.

And perhaps a remedial English class at a nearby community
college while you're at it.

WWAI, /what/ IS a "snipping tool"?

 

[Steve Hayes]

It depends upon the operating system.

For a system like Windows XP, the answer is yes. Nobody had ever offered
convincing evidence that these outdated entries slow down performance.

Thanks.

I thoguht that in this ng, unless otherwise stated, that WERE talking about
Windows XP operating system.

And if I reinstall the software, will it just overwrite the old entries, so
that they don't interfere with the new installation?

 

[Daave]

Thanks.

I thoguht that in this ng, unless otherwise stated, that WERE talking
about Windows XP operating system.

Good point.

The problem is that with earlier operating systems (e.g., Windows 98),
registry cleaning actually *did* produce a certain amount of improvement
in performance. And many people who have had positive experiences with
these registry cleaning utilities had them all those years ago when they
ran those OSes, yours truly included. In fact, the utility that I
preferred was Jouni Vuorio's RegCleaner 4.3. (This is interesting
because the program recommended by Kim Kommando is written by him, too!)

But operating systems from XP onward are designed so differently, and
seemingly countless orphan entries in the registry interestingly cause
no appreciable difference in performance. This is why so many
experienced people caution against the use of these programs. There is
no noticeable benefit and there is a small chance that significant
damage may occur. Yes, although rare, there have been instances reported
in these very newsgroups where people have been unable to boot into
Windows after running these cleaners!

Adding to the confusion is the large number of scams one can find
throughout the Internet. Many of these scams are malware disguised in a
registry cleaning package. A friend of mine fell for one of these scams
about a year ago, panicked, and wound up using his credit card to make
himself $50 poorer!

For advanced people who always have an up-to-date image or clone of
their system hard drive, using the _non-scam_ registry cleaners is not
an issue because even if the rare situation of a non-bootable system
occurs, they're covered. And some people like to play around and clean
house, attempting to rid their registries of as many useless entries (or
entries *perceived* of as useless!) as possible. Some of these people
(hello, Twayne) will insist that the perceived threat of cleaning a
registry is overblown.

But this brings us back to Square One: With systems like Windows XP,
these leftover registry entries simply do not affect performance in any
appreciable way. No one has *ever* offered actual evidence to support
this claim. The closest (and it's not close at all!) I have found is
anecdotal evidence like the following:

I've never noticed a perfrmance boost on my own machines but on
occasion
I have seen it help in customer's machines. I don't look for it either
as a
rule because it's not my purpose in running such a program. Even then
you
have to be purposely looking for it though, since an A-B comparison
can't be
made.

(from a post made by the aforementioned Twayne)

Just because someone on some newsgroup says something like "on occasion
I have seen it help in customer's machines" doesn't mean this is actual
evidence! Human beings are funny creatures and imagination can be a
powerful thing. That is why I always look for actual evidence. All one
would need to do is design an experiment that *would* allow for an A-B
comparison.

And if I reinstall the software, will it just overwrite the old
entries, so that they don't interfere with the new installation?

It depends on the software.

If the uninstall and/or reinstall instructions are well-written, old
entries will be written over. Then again, many times old leftover
entries will remain. The point is that these old leftover entries just
sit there doing nothing 99.9% of the time, thereby not affecting
performance. In certain situations, there might be an issue, but it
would be an actual issue like the *inability* to install a newer version
of the same program, *not* a general performance issue. And those
specific issues can be addressed by either a specific removal tool
(Norton and McAfee have these on their sites for download) or by using
Regedit.

That being said, a program like the one written by Jouni Vuorio can have
some benefit in locating *specific* problematic entries quicker. But to
expect that just by running it for no reason will improve performance is
to be let down because it just won't happen.

You might find the following interesting:

http://www.whatthetech.com/2007/11/25/do-i-need-a-registry-cleaner/

 

[Kenneth J. Harris]

1. JV16 Power Tools is not freeware

2. I have used it on my computers

3. It does its job well(removing unwanted registry entries, etc.)

4. Does it make a computer run better? Perhaps a little bit.

5. Does it do any harm? No, as long as you follow the directions for
its use.

 

[thanatoid]

(Still waiting for an example, David.)

I thoguht that in this ng, unless otherwise stated, that
WERE talking about Windows XP operating system.

And if I reinstall the software, will it just overwrite the
old entries, so that they don't interfere with the new
installation?

/Very/ good question. Let's see all the people who enjoy
hoarding old registry entries answer that one. Let's specify
"reinstall" and "overwrite" to mean that a newer version of the
same program is being installed, or a /similar/ program which
handles the same types of files.

(If you are reinstalling the /identical/ version of the same
program you had before, the worst that may happen is that you
may end up with old settings you don't want any more or that you
may end up with new settings you didn't want, depending on how
bad the install routine is written. Either way you will have to
do some work.)

 

[Steve Hayes]

But operating systems from XP onward are designed so differently, and
seemingly countless orphan entries in the registry interestingly cause
no appreciable difference in performance. This is why so many
experienced people caution against the use of these programs. There is
no noticeable benefit and there is a small chance that significant
damage may occur. Yes, although rare, there have been instances reported
in these very newsgroups where people have been unable to boot into
Windows after running these cleaners!

Thanks for that info.

For advanced people who always have an up-to-date image or clone of
their system hard drive, using the _non-scam_ registry cleaners is not
an issue because even if the rare situation of a non-bootable system
occurs, they're covered. And some people like to play around and clean
house, attempting to rid their registries of as many useless entries (or
entries *perceived* of as useless!) as possible. Some of these people
(hello, Twayne) will insist that the perceived threat of cleaning a
registry is overblown.

I installed some programs on my second hard disk, which then began
misbehaving. I put in a new disk, restored the partition images from backups,
but the new programs were missing, though the stuff in the registry on the C:
drive will still be there.

I was thinking of reinstalling some of those programs, but wondered if the
existing registry entries might confuse things, so was thinking of using a
registry cleaner (after making a backup of the C: drive) before trying to
reinstall them.

Most registry cleaners I know come on those discs distributed with rputable
computer magazines -- if they are all malware, why isn't there a chorus of
complaints from their readers?

 

[Daave]

Thanks for that info.


I installed some programs on my second hard disk, which then began
misbehaving. I put in a new disk, restored the partition images from
backups, but the new programs were missing, though the stuff in the
registry on the C: drive will still be there.

I was thinking of reinstalling some of those programs, but wondered
if the existing registry entries might confuse things, so was
thinking of using a registry cleaner (after making a backup of the C:
drive) before trying to reinstall them.

Chances are 99.9% that there will be no confusion. Nothing in life is
100%. But that also goes for altering registry settings as a
preventative measure. There is always a small chance that doing so will
cause significant problems. That is why it is logical to leave well
enough alone.

Most registry cleaners I know come on those discs distributed with
rputable computer magazines -- if they are all malware, why isn't
there a chorus of complaints from their readers?

They are *not* all malware. Most, in fact, are legit programs (which
would explain why there is no "chorus of complaints" ). They just
don't offer any benefit when it comes to increasing performance; it is a
placebo effect.

*Some* programs are malware, however. Here is one example:

http://www.411-spyware.com/remove-registrycleanerpro

 

[Twayne]

In

I do and have many times.


That is SOME sentence ;-)

JV16 does an amazing job and tells you exactly WHY something
"can go" and it's up to you, It also makes backups - which I
have NEVER needed to use.

Generally, after using my 4 reg cleaners (I only do it once in a
while, like before making an image of C I DO manually clean
stuff because NOTHING will do EVERYTHING.

The reg cleaners just make the job faster and more thorough
since they will look through everything, like the entire HKCR
tree, something I have NO patience for.

I'll buy that; it's one step further than I go, but it doesn't hurt anything
as long as you know what you're doing, which you do or you wouldn't be
online< G >. Well, I also only use one cleaner too, but I do have three I
keep available just in case.
You did well, brain-farted sentence and all! :^}

Cheers,

Twayne`

 

[Twayne]

In

I'll post where ever I want and if you don't like it don't bother
reading my posts.

What good, pray tell, has a registry cleaner ever done for you? Like
all the other believers out there you put some kind of blind faith or
voodoo trust in them and because your registry cleaner has found and
removed a couple of orphaned registry entries it gives you a warm
fuzzy feeling and you think that it's doing something useful.

Your question says it all, "WHAT, pray tell, has one done to any of
YOUR systems that you could not undo with the backup files...". That
is the gist of it all. Why bother with programs that at best do
nothing other than give you a fuzzy feeling and that at worst will
cause problems requiring you to restore registry files? That is if
the registry cleaner can even restore its own backup (often they
can't) or if it hasn't crippled the installation to the point where
the Windows can't boot properly.
John

I'll post where ever I want and if you don't like it don't bother
reading my posts.

I'll do exactly as I please, thank you! And I could not care less whether
maroons read my posts or not. It's your choice.

What good, pray tell, has a registry cleaner ever done for you? Like
all the other believers out there you put some kind of blind faith or
voodoo trust in them and because your registry cleaner has found and
removed a couple of orphaned registry entries it gives you a warm
fuzzy feeling and you think that it's doing something useful.

Registry cleaners have done an immense amount of good for me, ranging
from speeding boot times on occastion, getting programs back and working
that were hijacked by a leftover entry the prog just happened to pick up,
faster registry-load times into RAM, etc., all the way to doing nothing
perceptible. That's what they've done for me.
Orphaned entries are irrelevant but apparently the only thing you thing
cleaners do. You are so wrong. It's only intentional ignorance that gives
you your own warm fuzzies, I'm afraid.
I'd love to see you trying to get a machine working right again after say
Office quits working, won't start, won't uninstall and won't reinstall. Do
you even have a hint how many regisry entries you'll find for MS Office?
After replacing msinstaller and ten more minutes, I fired up the registry
cleaner and within a minute or so had MS Office removed from the registry
since I'd deleted all the files it could try to access.

Why bother with programs that at best do

nothing other than give you a fuzzy feeling and that at worst will
cause problems requiring you to restore registry files?

NO SENSE at all! But I don't have any such programs, so ... . Oh, and
in over a decade I've never had a cleaner do any damage to a single byte on
my machines. The good ones are just as robust as the registry is these days
but even the first ones didn't damage anything as you like to keep repeating
ad infinitum in your dazed condition.

That is if

the registry cleaner can even restore its own backup (often they
can't) or if it hasn't crippled the installation to the point where
the Windows can't boot properly.

Ahh, there we are: You must download crapola without so much as a thought to
whether the source is going to be legitimate or not. Go looking for no
names and you'll find damaging software in a lot more than registry
cleaners! By contrast, there are very few of them compared to other
possibilities of malware and adware.
I've never had any machine damaged in any way by any of the ones I use.
I've never even had to use the "recovery" functions of any of them, mostly
because I won't use a program that relies on having malware present in order
to run, of which there used to be quite a few of them.

These cleaners are next to utterly

useless and the purposed non existent benefits parroted by the
vendors and fans of these programs are simply not worth the risk of
the real damages that these programs can and do sometimes cause.

Let's see, that long run on sentence says exactly the opposite of what
reality is. There's no more risk than installing any reputable program/s
barring power outages, etc.. THEY - DO - NO - DAMAGE - NOT - EVEN -
SOMETIMES .

It's too bad you insist on keeping your running intentional ignorance and
have absolutely no, nada, not even an inkling of any actual evidence to
support your foolish contentions.

As for benefits parroted by vendors: So now you're saying hype shouldn't be
believed? Hmm, that pretty much puts Microsoft and a lot of other big boys
in the tank! If one doesn't hype their product, how is one to know what the
product even is? You're also a marketing moron in addition to your
misinformation and even the occasional lies.

I feel fer ya! But not much. Thanks for this opportunity to once again
expose you for what you are.

Cheers,

Twayne`

 

[Twayne]

In

Forget the BS spelling faux pas...

It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners !

What're you, practicing to pose as a doctor? Take two pills of whatever
you've got and go to sleep.

 

[Twayne]

In

Because the need for one is a myth

Use can cause MORE problems than they purport to solve. Problems
that can be catastrophic.

Citations? Detailed, verifiable evidence? Anything besides the very
occasional anecdote? I've never seen one other than the Um, Huh thread
written with extreme bias by one of our participants here.
On what do you base your opinion (which you state as fact)? Oh, that's
right; you're a micro-sap company man.

Twayne`

 

[Twayne]

In

I just LOVE specific replies! Bravo!


I /could/ ask for an example but judging by your "reply" to my
first question, I don't see much point.

You've got it! Not a single one of the few posters here who spew the same
misinformation over and over have anything they can cite or use to advance
their point other than the occasional anecdotal, unverifiable post and the
um, huh!

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

In

What you haven't done, for all of your posturing, is tell why you
think registry cleaning is a good idea. We know that there's always a
chance that a neophyte will "clean" something that will result in
trouble, and even if the chance is remote, there must be something
that makes the risk worthwhile. If you just want to clean out
orphaned entries because their presence bothers you, that's a
personal neurosis and not evidence of efficacy. Do you believe that
large numbers of orphaned entries cause a problem (such as
significantly slowing down the system) other than their mere
presence? If so, what objective evidence do you have? Note that "I
know my system's faster after registry cleaning" isn't objective
evidence.

You're completely wrong. For answers to your own question see one of my
other responses. As usual, you only think about orphaned entries and nothing
else in your myopic state of unreadiness. You parrot but you know nothing
about what you say.

HTH,

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

In

You don't see much of anything.

Said the almost most ignorant one

 

[Twayne]

How you come about that preposterous supposition is a question for the ages
I'm afraid. Your'e off topic and off your feed. Redirecting a thread doesn't
work for a lot of people.
Worst are the ones who won't follow what's already been established and
mix the order anyway. So here's your glorious top post; snipped yet.


In

And there you go.

<snip>